[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 31, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41629-41634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14473]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0295, FRL-8443-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; States of 
Arizona and Nevada; Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve state 
implementation plans submitted by the States of Arizona and Nevada that 
address interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine 
particulate matter national ambient air quality standards. In so doing, 
EPA has determined that the plans submitted by Arizona and Nevada and 
approved herein satisfy requirements under Clean Air Act section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for each State to submit a plan containing adequate 
provisions to prohibit interstate transport with respect to the 
standards for 8-hour ozone and fine particulate matter. EPA is taking 
this action pursuant to those provisions of the Clean Air Act that 
obligate the Agency to take action on submittals of state 
implementation plans. The effect of this action is to approve the 
Arizona and Nevada state implementation plans addressing interstate 
transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and fine particulate 
standards and to eliminate obligations on the Agency to promulgate 
Federal implementation plans for these States addressing this same 
requirement.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 1, 2007, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 30, 2007. If 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that 
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2007-0295 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: (415) 947-3579 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
     Hand Delivery: Wienke Tax, Office of Air Planning, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. Such deliveries 
are only accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:55 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0295. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public 
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the 
Office of Air Planning, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 
IX, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-3901. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 
view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the 
docket

[[Page 41630]]

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Arizona issues, contact Wienke 
Tax, EPA Region IX, (520) 622-1622, [email protected]; for Nevada 
issues, contact Karina O'Connor, EPA Region IX, (775) 833-1276, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements
    A. CAA Procedural Provisions
    B. ``Significant Contribution'' and ``Interference With 
Maintenance'' Requirements
    C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
    D. Visibility
III. Arizona's Interstate Transport SIP
    A. CAA Procedural Provisions
    B. ``Significant Contribution'' and ``Interference With 
Maintenance'' Requirements
    C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility
    D. Evaluation and Conclusion
IV. Nevada's Interstate Transport SIP
    A. CAA Procedural Provisions
    B. ``Significant Contribution'' and ``Interference With 
Maintenance'' Requirements
    C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility
    D. Evaluation and Conclusion
V. EPA's Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA issued new standards for the 8-hour ozone and 
particulate matter (PM) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). 
For ozone, EPA revised the NAAQS by adding an 8-hour averaging period 
(versus 1 hour for the previous NAAQS), and the level of the standard 
was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). For the PM NAAQS, 
EPA added a new 24-hour standard and a new annual standard for fine 
particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter, PM2.5). Section 110(a)(1) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requires States to submit new 
state implementation plans (SIPs) that provide for the implementation, 
maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised standard within three 
years after promulgation of such standard, or within such shorter 
period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that 
such new SIPs must address, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which 
applies to interstate transport of certain emissions. Section 110(a)(1) 
imposes the obligation upon States to make a SIP submission for a new 
or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary 
depending upon the facts and circumstances of each State.
    On April 25, 2005, EPA made a finding that States had failed to 
submit SIPs to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 
the Act for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. See 70 FR 
21147. This finding started a 2-year clock for promulgation by EPA of a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), in accordance with section 
110(c)(1), for any State that did not submit a SIP meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour ozone and 
PM2.5 NAAQS, unless prior to that time, each State makes a 
submission to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and EPA 
approves such submission. On August 15, 2006, EPA issued a guidance 
memorandum (``Interstate Transport Guidance'') concerning the SIP 
submissions under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air 
Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. EPA, entitled ``Guidance for State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under 
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' dated August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2007, the Nevada Division of Environmental 
Protection (NDEP) submitted a SIP entitled Nevada State Implementation 
Plan for Interstate Transport to Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air 
Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS 
Promulgated in July 1997 (January 31, 2007) (``Nevada Interstate 
Transport SIP''). On May 24, 2007, the Arizona Department of 
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a SIP entitled Revision to the 
Arizona State Implementation Plan Under Clean Air Act Section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Regional Transport (May 2007) (``Arizona Interstate 
Transport SIP''). For the reasons provided in sections III and IV of 
this rule, we are approving Arizona's and Nevada's interstate transport 
SIPs in this action thereby eliminating the requirement under CAA 
Section 110(c)(1) for EPA to promulgate interstate transport FIPs for 
these States.

II. Applicable Clean Air Act Requirements

    As noted above, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and 
PM2.5 in 1997, and under section 110(a)(1), within three 
years thereafter, States were to submit SIPs to address the various SIP 
elements listed under section 110(a)(2) for the new NAAQS, including 
the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Act. 
Under the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), each 
State must submit a SIP that contains adequate provisions:

    (i) Prohibiting, consistent with the provisions of this 
subchapter, any source or other type of emissions activity within 
the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will--
    (I) Contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere 
with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any such 
national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard, or
    (II) Interfere with measures required to be included in the 
applicable implementation plan for any other State under part C of 
this subchapter to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 
or to protect visibility.
    Under section 110 of the Act and EPA regulations (at 40 CFR part 
51, subpart F), each State must provide reasonable notice and public 
hearing prior to adoption of SIPs and SIP revisions for subsequent 
submittal to EPA.

III. Arizona's Interstate Transport SIP

A. CAA Procedural Provisions

    On March 29 and 30, 2007, ADEQ published a notice in the Arizona 
Republic, a newspaper of general circulation in the Phoenix area, of a 
public hearing on proposed revisions to the Arizona SIP to address the 
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). A public hearing was held on 
April 30, 2007 in Phoenix. On May 24, 2007, in accordance with Arizona 
law, the Director of ADEQ adopted the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP 
and submitted the SIP to EPA for approval. ADEQ's section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submittal package includes evidence of public 
notice, public hearing, and ADEQ adoption as described above. No public 
comments were received on the draft SIP. Based on review of these 
materials, we find that ADEQ has met the procedural requirements of CAA 
section 110 and 40 CFR part 51, subpart F.

B. ``Significant Contribution'' and ``Interference With Maintenance'' 
Requirements

    As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States to 
prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, 
or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 
NAAQS. ADEQ's Arizona Interstate Transport SIP concludes that emissions 
from air pollution sources in Arizona do not significantly contribute 
to nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or

[[Page 41631]]

PM2.5 NAAQS or interfere with maintenance of those standards 
in another state. In support of this negative declaration, the Arizona 
Interstate Transport SIP identifies the following factors and provides 
the following analysis:
     Boundary designations and locations. Nonattainment 
boundaries are intended to include areas where NAAQS violations are 
occurring as well as areas that contribute to those violations and in 
the case of Arizona and the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the only 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment area (the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area) is located 
within the central portion of the State. The Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment 
Area includes much of eastern Maricopa County as well as Apache 
Junction in Pinal County. There are no nonattainment areas in Arizona 
for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The Maricopa Association of Governments 
(MAG) is currently developing a SIP revision for the area which will 
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by its statutory 
attainment date of 2009.
     Spatial distribution of emissions. Emissions of pollutants 
contributing to 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 formation are highest 
in the Phoenix metropolitan area, which as noted above, is located in 
the central portion of the State. The most recently available emissions 
inventories from EPA's AirData for Arizona counties show that Maricopa 
County sources emit approximately 50 percent of the state's volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) and 36 percent of the nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), known precursors to ozone, and approximately 30 
percent of the state's total PM2.5 emissions. No other 
county emits the level of emissions generated by Maricopa County.
     Monitoring data. An examination of historic monitored 
ambient air quality data demonstrates that Maricopa County is the only 
county in the state where monitors have recorded violations of the 8-
hour ozone standard. Data collected from 2004-2006 show that all 
monitored areas are currently meeting the 8-hour ozone and 
PM2.5 standards. The highest recorded ambient concentrations 
from this period are from Maricopa County monitoring sites or from 
those of nearby sites in Gila and Pinal Counties.
     Topography. The Phoenix-Mesa 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment 
Area is located primarily in the broad and mostly flat Salt River 
Valley and is separated from other areas of the State by mountainous, 
complex terrain on the north, northeast, east, and southwest.
     Meteorology/Climatology. Wind patterns in the Phoenix-Mesa 
Nonattainment Area are greatly influenced by local topography. Because 
of its valley location, backed by high terrain to the north and east, 
the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area is subject to distinct up-valley/
down-valley wind patterns. The prevailing winds and high elevation 
blocking terrain to the east of the area were two of the factors that 
helped determine the impacts of transported emissions and the eastern 
extent of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area. Similar patterns are 
repeated across Arizona's many airsheds and areas of complex terrain.
     Location of Nonattainment Areas in Neighboring States. 
Nonattainment areas for 8-hour ozone in states neighboring Arizona are 
located in southern Nevada (40 CFR 81.329), southern California (40 CFR 
81.305), and north-central Colorado (40 CFR 81.306). First, in 
designating the 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in southern Nevada 
(i.e., a portion of Clark County), EPA concurred in Arizona's 
conclusion that sources in neighboring Mojave County did not contribute 
to nonattainment in the Las Vegas area. Second, the closest 8-hour 
ozone nonattainment area in California is located in Imperial County, 
more than 80 miles west of the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area and more 
than 200 miles from large point sources in Apache, Coconino, and Navajo 
Counties. Based on regional and local air flow patterns, California 
nonattainment areas are upwind of Arizona emissions sources. Third, the 
8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Colorado is separated from Arizona 
by the Rocky Mountains, with elevations greater than 14,000 feet and 
are more than 200 miles from the Arizona-Colorado border and more than 
400 miles from the Phoenix-Mesa Nonattainment Area. With respect to 
PM2.5, as noted, California nonattainment areas are upwind 
of Arizona emissions sources. All other states that border Arizona are 
designated unclassifiable/attainment for PM2.5.
     Modeling. With respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS, ADEQ 
also points to modeling that EPA conducted in connection with EPA's 
promulgation of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), which purportedly 
shows Arizona's contribution to nonattainment in downwind states to be 
minimal. The information that EPA provided ADEQ concerning EPA's 
modeling for the CAIR rule, however, was in error. The State of Arizona 
was not included in the modeling. We believe that ADEQ has presented 
sufficient support for the negative declaration in its discussion of 
the other factors and need not rely on CAIR modeling results.

C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility

    As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to 
prohibit emissions that interfere with measures required to be included 
in the SIP for any other State to prevent significant deterioration of 
air quality or to protect visibility.
    The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP explains that non-interference 
with CAA PSD measures in other states is achieved through 
preconstruction review and permitting procedures for stationary 
sources. Specifically, all new sources and modifications to existing 
sources in Arizona are subject to state requirements for 
preconstruction review and permitting pursuant to Arizona 
Administrative Code (AAC), Title 18, Chapter 2, Articles 2 and 4 or 
relevant county rules. All new major sources and major modifications to 
existing major sources in Arizona are subject to the nonattainment New 
Source Review (NNSR) provisions of these rules (including 8-hour ozone 
nonattainment areas) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 
for attainment areas. ADEQ indicates that Arizona will update the NSR 
rules when EPA's PM2.5 implementation guidance is finalized 
and that Arizona will implement the current rules in accordance with 
EPA's interim guidance using PM10 as a surrogate for 
PM2.5 in the PSD and NNSR programs.
    The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP explains that non-interference 
with CAA visibility measures in other states is achieved with respect 
to 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 through implementation and 
enforcement of the State's reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment (RAVI) rule (codified at Arizona Administrative Code 
Sections R18-2-1601 through R18-2-1606), which requires Arizona to 
analyze and implement control strategies where applicable should a 
source be certified and found attributable for causing or contributing 
to visibility impairment.
    The Arizona Interstate Transport SIP notes that Arizona 
Administrative Code Section R18-2-410 provides additional protection of 
visibility by requiring new major sources or major modifications to 
complete an analysis of the anticipated impacts on visibility to any 
Class I area that may be affected by the emissions from the source. 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs) may also submit a visibility impact 
analysis for additional consideration during the permitting process.

[[Page 41632]]

    Regarding visibility impairment caused by regional haze, the 
Arizona Interstate Transport SIP concurs with EPA in concluding that it 
is currently premature to determine whether or not SIPs for 8-hour 
ozone or PM2.5 contain adequate provisions to prohibit 
emissions that interfere with measures in other States' SIPs designed 
to address regional haze.\2\ Under EPA's regional haze regulations, 
regional haze SIPs are not due until December 17, 2007, and until these 
SIPs are submitted, accurate assessments regarding the impact of 
emissions and control measures on other States' SIPs cannot be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See pages 9 and 10 in EPA's Interstate Transport Guidance, 
referenced in Footnote 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Evaluation and Conclusion

    We find that ADEQ's selection of factors and accompanying analysis 
(see section III.B., above) provide a reasonable basis with which to 
evaluate the impacts of emissions from within Arizona on other states. 
We also find that ADEQ's conclusion that emissions from Arizona do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 standard in any other state is 
adequately supported by the information in the Arizona Interstate 
Transport SIP.
    We also find that the Arizona Interstate Transport SIP adequately 
provides for non-interference with CAA PSD and visibility (not 
including regional haze) measures in other states with respect to 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5 and reasonably concludes that a 
determination of whether or not the Arizona SIP for 8-hour ozone or 
PM2.5 contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions 
that interfere with measures in other States' SIPs designed to address 
regional visibility impairment caused by regional haze must wait for 
the submittal of regional haze SIPs.
    Based on these findings, we are approving the Arizona Interstate 
Transport SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our approval of this SIP, we are no 
longer obligated to promulgate a FIP for Arizona addressing the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement.

IV. Nevada's Interstate Transport SIP

A. CAA Procedural Provisions

    On December 18, 2007, NDEP's Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) 
published a notice on their Web site of a comment period on a proposed 
SIP to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Notice of 
the comment period was also sent via the State Environmental 
Commission's (SEC's) electronic mailing list as well as the BAQP's 
lists of interested persons. The comment period was open until January 
19, 2007. No public comments were received on the proposed SIP. The 
notice provided the opportunity for members of the public to request a 
public hearing, but no such request was made. On February 5, 2007, in 
accordance with Nevada law, the Administrator of NDEP adopted the 
Nevada Interstate Transport SIP and submitted the SIP to EPA for 
approval. NDEP's section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submittal package includes 
evidence of public notice and opportunity for public hearing, and NDEP 
adoption, and, based on review of these materials, we find that NDEP 
has met the procedural requirements of CAA section 110 and 40 CFR part 
51, subpart F.

B. ``Significant Contribution'' and ``Interference With Maintenance'' 
Requirements

    As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires States to 
prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, 
or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to the 
NAAQS. NDEP's Nevada Interstate Transport SIP concludes that emissions 
from air pollution sources in Nevada do not significantly contribute to 
nonattainment of the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 NAAQS or 
interfere with maintenance of those standards in another state. In 
support of this negative declaration, the Nevada Interstate Transport 
SIP identifies the following factors and provides the following 
analysis:
     Prevailing Winds and Location of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas 
in Neighboring States. There are no PM2.5 nonattainment 
areas in Nevada. Moreover, prevailing winds are from the south to west, 
and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in neighboring states are 
located to the east, i.e., upwind, in California.
     Prevailing Winds and Location of 8-Hour Ozone 
Nonattainment Areas in Neighboring States. There is one nonattainment 
area in Nevada, the Las Vegas area. Data from McCarran International 
Airport in Las Vegas indicate that prevailing winds are from the 
southwest. Thus, 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas in southern 
California lie upwind of the Las Vegas area. The Phoenix metropolitan 
area, the only 8-hour ozone nonattainment area in Arizona, lies 300 
miles south of Las Vegas and is characterized by east-west winds and 
thus is not downwind of Las Vegas.
     Nonattainment Plans. Clark County Department of Air 
Quality and Environmental Management (Clark County) is currently 
required to develop a SIP revision for the Las Vegas area which will 
demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by 2009.
    In the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP, NDEP commits to continue to 
review new air quality information as it becomes available to ensure 
that the negative declaration based on the above factors and analysis 
is still supported by such information.

C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility

    As noted above, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires States to 
prohibit emissions that interfere with measures required to be included 
in the SIP for any other State to prevent significant deterioration of 
air quality or to protect visibility.
    The Nevada Interstate Transport SIP explains that non-interference 
with CAA PSD measures in other states is achieved through 
preconstruction review and permitting procedures for major new sources 
and major modifications under the State's PSD program (delegated from 
EPA) and under the State's regulations for nonattainment New Source 
Review (NNSR). NDEP notes that EPA has established or will establish 
schedules for SIP submissions that incorporate revisions to EPA's 
preconstruction permitting regulations that are specific to the 8-hour 
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and that Nevada intends to revise the 
Nevada SIP consistent with such schedules. In the meantime, NDEP will 
implement the current rules and PSD delegation in accordance with EPA's 
interim guidance using PM10 as a surrogate for 
PM2.5 in the PSD and NNSR programs.
    For showing non-interference with CAA visibility measures in other 
states, the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP notes that EPA has made no 
determination that the emissions from any State interfere with measures 
required to be included in a plan to address reasonably attributable 
visibility impairment. With respect to regional haze, NDEP notes in the 
Nevada Interstate Transport SIP that Nevada is working on a SIP to 
address visibility impairment due to regional haze and is required to 
submit a regional haze SIP by December 17, 2007.

D. Evaluation and Conclusion

    We find that NDEP's selection of factors and accompanying analysis 
(see section IV.B., above) provide a reasonable basis with which to 
evaluate

[[Page 41633]]

the impacts of emissions from within Nevada on other states. We also 
find that NDEP's conclusion that emissions from Nevada do not 
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance 
of the 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 standard in any other state is 
adequately supported by the information in the Nevada Interstate 
Transport SIP.
    We also find that the Nevada Interstate Transport SIP adequately 
provides for non-interference with CAA PSD and visibility (not 
including regional haze) measures in other states with respect to 8-
hour ozone and PM2.5. A determination of whether or not the 
Nevada SIP for 8-hour ozone or PM2.5 contains adequate 
provisions to prohibit emissions that interfere with measures in other 
States' SIPs designed to address regional visibility impairment caused 
by regional haze must wait for the submittal of regional haze SIPs.
    Based on these findings, we are approving the Nevada Interstate 
Transport SIP as meeting the requirements of CAA section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i), and as a result of our approval of this SIP, we are no 
longer obligated to promulgate a FIP for Nevada addressing the CAA 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement.

V. EPA's Final Action

    In today's action, EPA is approving the SIPs submitted by the 
States of Arizona and Nevada to satisfy the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 
NAAQS. These approvals eliminate the obligation on EPA to promulgate 
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) FIPs for these States.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal should adverse comments be filed. This 
action will be effective October 1, 2007, without further notice unless 
the EPA receives relevant adverse comments by August 30, 2007.
    If we receive such comments, then we will publish a document 
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will 
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in 
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not 
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on October 1, 2007 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state plans as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves State plans 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves State plans 
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission; to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 1, 2007. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.


[[Page 41634]]


    Dated: June 11, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(136) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (136) The following plan was submitted on May 24, 2007 by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) Revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan Under Clean 
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)--Regional Transport (May 2007), adopted 
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality on May 24, 2007.

Subpart DD--Nevada

0
3. Section 52.1470 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(64) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (64) The following plan was submitted on February 5, 2007 by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
    (1) Nevada State Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport to 
Satisfy the Requirements of Clean Air Act 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-
hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS Promulgated in July 1997 (January 
31, 2007), adopted by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 
on February 5, 2007.

[FR Doc. E7-14473 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P